too old for this sh* wrote:Hopefully I am not breaching forum etiquette here by blowing this much dust off of a thread, but...

...as I read about impact of earlier grades on LSDAC computations, I stumbled upon this thread (among others) that described my situation, specifically a semester from hell but where everything was repeated later in life and where I ultimately finished in the top 4 in the class for work performed in residence at the degree-granting institution.

I do take some umbrage to the following statements:

ViP wrote:You said that you failed "a bunch of classes" during your first two years... Not one, not two, but "a bunch" of classes...

Of course, in a just universe, your LSAC GPA will suffer as a result.

The fact that you were 18 is not a justifiable excuse. Every freshmen in college is 18...

Not all freshmen are 18. I was actually a full time student at the age of 17 and managed to piss away a full honors scholarship as a consequence of youthful freedoms run amuck. Throw in a major knee injury while living in a dorm that lacked elevators and it was truly the semester from hell.

But just for the twist of fate's knife, I would find out several years later that my withdrawals had not been processed for four of the courses. Consequently I was stuck with twelve hours of zero point zero, all prior to the age of 18. I did not expend much time tracking down or attempting to fix the problem at the time because it did not impact my later completion of requirements for my degree. You can imagine the fun of trying to correct the problem more than 25 years from the last time I had to consider the semester from hell.

Your aptitude for law school is not in question. LSAC doesn't grant strong GPAs to those who qualify for law school, but rather to those who performed strongly in undergrad. How does that not add up?

What does not add up is that the present system seems to unfairly penalize those that, for whatever reason, had a poor semester very early in life and then got on with their academic career, even if many years later. I'm still over 3.x even with the 12 hours included in any recalculation, but when viewing past academic performance, do you really want to tell me that a poor semester at the age of 17 should offset a top 5 graduation more than a decade later (and that was done while working full time) AND where an extensive body of work in the area of criminal law speaks to abilities?

It seems as though too much attention is placed on variables that do not really provide a true measure of one's ability to succeed in law school when one is pursuing the JD many years after the receipt of an undergraduate degree...

Every case is unique, and if you feel like you can defend your case, you can always write an addendum (although youthful freedoms running amuck probably won't cut it).

And yes, your poor semester at age 17 should definitely be considered. Why shouldn't it? If you had a serious emergency at that time in your life, it's absolutely terrible and you should write an addendum (this is precisely why addenda exist). But if your excuse is "I was young and immature," I find absolutely no reason for anyone to sympathize with you. That's all I'm trying to say.

Plus, in your specific case, you graduated more than a decade after screwing up... Your case is hardly typical. Addendum or no addendum, you're a non-traditional applicant and you'll be reviewed differently.

Also, the LSAT can make a huge difference. GPA is supposed to be one measure of your ability to succeed in law school. However, if you can make decent argument that your ability is not truly reflected in your LSAC GPA (in an addendum to your app) then many schools will take that into consideration. You argument will be enhanced if you have a strong upward grade trend and a high LSAT. I have a 1.12 my freshman year and still made into some really amazing schools. I believe a killer addendum, pretty good LSAT, and a strong upward trend made all the difference.

Also, the LSAT can make a huge difference. GPA is supposed to be one measure of your ability to succeed in law school. However, if you can make decent argument that your ability is not truly reflected in your LSAC GPA (in an addendum to your app) then many schools will take that into consideration. You argument will be enhanced if you have a strong upward grade trend and a high LSAT. I have a 1.12 my freshman year and still made into some really amazing schools. I believe a killer addendum, pretty good LSAT, and a strong upward trend made all the difference.

According to my calculations, you would have to get 3 years of straight A+'s (4.33) to pull a 1.12 to a 3.5.

Not to mention the fact that taking out freshman year would have made you a shoo-in at Harvard and competitive for Yale/Stanford.

The LSAT is the best standardized test -- it's difficult but very learnable, for anyone who's bright and is willing to put in the work.

And on the grade stuff, I like that they take a hard line -- if they didn't enforce some sort of standards, the GPA would be completely meaningless, even more so than it is now with rampant grade inflation. That's complete bullshit that schools let people flunk a class and then retake it and replace the grade. What the fuck is that? Decisions have consequences, even if you're 18 or 19. If you chose to ignore a class and fail it, you should pay for that.

scribelaw wrote:For all the abuse LSAC takes on here, I think they do a good job.

The LSAT is the best standardized test -- it's difficult but very learnable, for anyone who's bright and is willing to put in the work.

And on the grade stuff, I like that they take a hard line -- if they didn't enforce some sort of standards, the GPA would be completely meaningless, even more so than it is now with rampant grade inflation. That's complete bullshit that schools let people flunk a class and then retake it and replace the grade. What the fuck is that? Decisions have consequences, even if you're 18 or 19. If you chose to ignore a class and fail it, you should pay for that.

I think they do a terrible job at it.

What is the goal? To standardize GPAs? It still doesn't remove the institutions biases. Some liberal arts schools give away A's like candy, and at some big public school B is good grade. They trust the schools to determine what is A work and B work, but not how give a GPA? That makes no sense.

IMO your GPA should be whatever a regionally accredited university or college says it is.

I don't have a dog in this fight. My institutional GPA and LSAC GPA are the same.

Bruiser wrote:Hows this for screwing up. when I was in my second or third semester of undergrad (in 1988/89) I just left college. I didn't withdraw so I had 5 Fs!! I still regret that to this day. I went on the community college later for 2 semesters (got all As) and then five years later went to the state university and completed four years for a BA in history with a 3.97 gpa (only one B, all As). The entire time they factored in those Fs. I didn't even graduate with honors. So, my LSAC gpa is a 3.3. I know that's not horrible but still. I know they will see the 3.97 for 4 years at a State University but still. I will definitely write an addendum for that. However, this was no surprise, I expected it. I still am kicking myself but obviously I learned from that lesson. It sucks but that's the way it is.

Bruiser we are twins in this regard - I had same scenario in 1992 when my dad died - whole semester = Fs because I left without withdrawing, transcripts says X-no basis for grade. I was lucky though, my state university did not count my old classes toward my degree GPA .

Live and learn - I had no idea how much some of my stupidity back then would affect me now. Hope you kicked ass on the LSAT. Good luck.

Under "Grades Excluded from Conversion" on the LSAC website they state:

...."those assigned no measure of credit by the issuing institution, regardless of the grade."

What do you think that means? Does that mean that it is a 0 credit class? OR, does it mean you took it... but received no credit for it? ..(grade only, which I have two of, but received no credits/units for them...)

im_blue wrote:That's correct, LSAC's policy is to count all grades that appear on the transcript, regardless of how your school counts them in its GPA or toward your degree. Your cum and degree GPAs would only differ if you had grades from other institutions.

If i took "dual-credit" courses in high school, which are basically college courses that count as high school and college credit as well, do the grades I received through those courses count towards my GPA? I took four dual-credit courses through two different institutions separate from the UG college I am currently attending, and the letter grades show up on my transcript, but they are not factored into my UGGPA. For some clarity, they show under "transfer-credit" in my transcript.

Will they be factored into my LSAC GPA?

Yes, since the grades appear on your transcript. The fact that your UGGPA doesn't count them, is irrelevant.

im_blue wrote:That's correct, LSAC's policy is to count all grades that appear on the transcript, regardless of how your school counts them in its GPA or toward your degree. Your cum and degree GPAs would only differ if you had grades from other institutions.

If i took "dual-credit" courses in high school, which are basically college courses that count as high school and college credit as well, do the grades I received through those courses count towards my GPA? I took four dual-credit courses through two different institutions separate from the UG college I am currently attending, and the letter grades show up on my transcript, but they are not factored into my UGGPA. For some clarity, they show under "transfer-credit" in my transcript.

Will they be factored into my LSAC GPA?

Yes, since the grades appear on your transcript. The fact that your UGGPA doesn't count them, is irrelevant.

How does this jive with my post/question above it? The LSAC website addresses issues where some grades are not counted-----Under "Grades Excluded from Conversion" on the LSAC website they state:

...."those assigned no measure of credit by the issuing institution, regardless of the grade."

too old for this sh* wrote:Hopefully I am not breaching forum etiquette here by blowing this much dust off of a thread, but...

...as I read about impact of earlier grades on LSDAC computations, I stumbled upon this thread (among others) that described my situation, specifically a semester from hell but where everything was repeated later in life and where I ultimately finished in the top 4 in the class for work performed in residence at the degree-granting institution.

I do take some umbrage to the following statements:

ViP wrote:You said that you failed "a bunch of classes" during your first two years... Not one, not two, but "a bunch" of classes...

Of course, in a just universe, your LSAC GPA will suffer as a result.

The fact that you were 18 is not a justifiable excuse. Every freshmen in college is 18...

Not all freshmen are 18. I was actually a full time student at the age of 17 and managed to piss away a full honors scholarship as a consequence of youthful freedoms run amuck. Throw in a major knee injury while living in a dorm that lacked elevators and it was truly the semester from hell.

But just for the twist of fate's knife, I would find out several years later that my withdrawals had not been processed for four of the courses. Consequently I was stuck with twelve hours of zero point zero, all prior to the age of 18. I did not expend much time tracking down or attempting to fix the problem at the time because it did not impact my later completion of requirements for my degree. You can imagine the fun of trying to correct the problem more than 25 years from the last time I had to consider the semester from hell.

Your aptitude for law school is not in question. LSAC doesn't grant strong GPAs to those who qualify for law school, but rather to those who performed strongly in undergrad. How does that not add up?

What does not add up is that the present system seems to unfairly penalize those that, for whatever reason, had a poor semester very early in life and then got on with their academic career, even if many years later. I'm still over 3.x even with the 12 hours included in any recalculation, but when viewing past academic performance, do you really want to tell me that a poor semester at the age of 17 should offset a top 5 graduation more than a decade later (and that was done while working full time) AND where an extensive body of work in the area of criminal law speaks to abilities?

It seems as though too much attention is placed on variables that do not really provide a true measure of one's ability to succeed in law school when one is pursuing the JD many years after the receipt of an undergraduate degree...

Every case is unique, and if you feel like you can defend your case, you can always write an addendum (although youthful freedoms running amuck probably won't cut it).

And yes, your poor semester at age 17 should definitely be considered. Why shouldn't it? If you had a serious emergency at that time in your life, it's absolutely terrible and you should write an addendum (this is precisely why addenda exist). But if your excuse is "I was young and immature," I find absolutely no reason for anyone to sympathize with you. That's all I'm trying to say.

Plus, in your specific case, you graduated more than a decade after screwing up... Your case is hardly typical. Addendum or no addendum, you're a non-traditional applicant and you'll be reviewed differently.

+1 for sure. and thats not even taking into account how specific and unique your position is "too old." and 17 and 18 arent really different...not like there's a magical switch that flips when that 18th birthday rolls around lol.

point is, there were plenty of ppl the same age as you who did NOT fail classes, who may have had the same circumstances but DID take time out to pursue the withdrawals sooner, etc. and of course there are those who failed the classes and had a semester from hell but their school does not offer such a retake policy.

all actions that you had control over = less pity imo; things outside your control that screwed you over deserve an addendum and special attention.

2807 wrote:Under "Grades Excluded from Conversion" on the LSAC website they state:

...."those assigned no measure of credit by the issuing institution, regardless of the grade."

What do you think that means? Does that mean that it is a 0 credit class? OR, does it mean you took it... but received no credit for it? ..(grade only, which I have two of, but received no credits/units for them...)

Thanks

They're talking about 0-credit classes like P.E. that some undergrads offer. It can't count in your LSDAS GPA regardless of the grade, since it has no credit. It does not mean that you took a class that has credit hours but received no credit for it (in fact, that sounds like a NC = F).

2807 wrote:Under "Grades Excluded from Conversion" on the LSAC website they state:

...."those assigned no measure of credit by the issuing institution, regardless of the grade."

What do you think that means? Does that mean that it is a 0 credit class? OR, does it mean you took it... but received no credit for it? ..(grade only, which I have two of, but received no credits/units for them...)

Thanks

They're talking about 0-credit classes like P.E. that some undergrads offer. It can't count in your LSDAS GPA regardless of the grade, since it has no credit. It does not mean that you took a class that has credit hours but received no credit for it (in fact, that sounds like a NC = F).

Thanks. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense in the way you explain it. Everyone who has done a re-take of a class would then have a grade and no unit(s) as even the schools that allow a re-do do not then give you credit again. O well.... it would have helped me if my delusional interpretation had worked. Now, it's back to reality...

I had a 3.5 that LSAC reduced to a 3.34 and I can't figure it out. I had one each of the above (although the Pass would have been an A and I'm still kicking myself in the ass over it 4 years out of UG) but I don't see how that would bring it down so much. Grrr!

For the people arguing above- + and - are calculated differently-A+=4.33, A=4, A-= 3.67, B+=3.33, B=3, B-=2.67, and so on. So if you tend to either get a lot more +s or a lot more -s your LSAC GPA will be slightly altered from your university one.

Also, the LSAT can make a huge difference. GPA is supposed to be one measure of your ability to succeed in law school. However, if you can make decent argument that your ability is not truly reflected in your LSAC GPA (in an addendum to your app) then many schools will take that into consideration. You argument will be enhanced if you have a strong upward grade trend and a high LSAT. I have a 1.12 my freshman year and still made into some really amazing schools. I believe a killer addendum, pretty good LSAT, and a strong upward trend made all the difference.

According to my calculations, you would have to get 3 years of straight A+'s (4.33) to pull a 1.12 to a 3.5.

Not to mention the fact that taking out freshman year would have made you a shoo-in at Harvard and competitive for Yale/Stanford.

I took a few years off and then basically started over. So four years of 3.5 years of 4.0 brought my GPA up to a 3.5.

I had a 3.5 that LSAC reduced to a 3.34 and I can't figure it out. I had one each of the above (although the Pass would have been an A and I'm still kicking myself in the ass over it 4 years out of UG) but I don't see how that would bring it down so much. Grrr!

This does seem odd. I thought LSAC counted Pass grades as null. This might be something you want to check up on, but I'm not an expert in LSAC grade calculation.

Yes, Pass grades are not counted, but No Pass = F. You should double-check if something else caused that.

EzraStiles wrote:For the people arguing above- + and - are calculated differently-A+=4.33, A=4, A-= 3.67, B+=3.33, B=3, B-=2.67, and so on. So if you tend to either get a lot more +s or a lot more -s your LSAC GPA will be slightly altered from your university one.

Also, a lot of schools calculate A- = 3.7 and B+ = 3.3, so the 3.67 and 3.33 would alter it slightly by 0.01-0.02.

I got burned by this as well. I graduated High School earlier than most at the top of my class. I was burnt out and should have delayed my college admissions, but instead started and did the abysmally stupid thing of registering for classes, then getting bored and just not attending or dropping the class. I burnt myself by a good 27 credits by doing this. I ultimately wised up and stopped wasting money.

Ten years later, I re-enrolled, completed a full 4 year degree in 2.5 years with a respectable GPA. LSAC counted -everything-, and my 3.7 turned into a 2.57

Everyone has a tough story at some point in their academic career. It isn't easy to maintain a 4.0 nor is it simple to ace the LSAT. Likewise, it's tough to swallow youthful mistakes. Does this mean that your potential for law school is doomed because you had a bunch of bad semesters? I read many of the replies to this thread and found an answer to this question.

The fact of the matter is that many of the people with less than stellar early college careers are the same people claiming they've corrected their course. Do not forget that walking the path you are most capable of requires that you accept responsibility for your mistakes and learn from them. Move on. It's not easy nor is it pleasant but I guarantee you'll get more out of it than being upset about your GPA.

In addition, taking responsibility means you have to accept the methods of LSAC, accept that you did some dopey things as a kid (I did too), and accept that you may not get into the school the matches your potential- this is the price of messing up the at the start. This does NOT mean that you can't go to law school- maybe just not Yale or Harvard. Regardless, when you DO get to law school, continue to push yourself so that you may rise to reach your potential in THIS situation rather than sulking over the one you "could've had". You waste precious time, energy, and emotion arguing with something most of us would like to change but can't. Wouldn't you rather be spending your resources on doing the best you can at this stage? I imagine you would yield greater benefit from this. Arguing with LSAC doesn't get you anywhere. kicking ass in law school does.

Last edited by MJS83 on Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.